Kolkata Court March 1945 Judgments
Kamada Kumar Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Harapada Banerji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal295
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for rent, and the only question is whether the defendant is entitled to abatement of rent as claimed by him. The defendant is admittedly a raiyat holding at a fixed rate under the plaintiff, who is a putnidar. There is no dispute as to the area of the tenancy, nor is there any question of deficiency in the area. Abatement is claimed on the ground that part of the land comprised in the tenancy has been covered by a deposit of sand several feet deep, rendering it unfit for the purposes of the tenancy. Both the Courts below have granted the abatement. They have based their decision mainly on a ruling of Jack J. in Sm. Achala Daasi v. Bejoy Chand Mahatap (34) 21 A. I. R. 1934 Cal. 831, where the learned Judge held that where part of the land of a tenancy is so covered by sand as to be wholly useless, the case may be regarded as coming within the provisions of Section 52 (b), Ben. Ten. Act, in other words, it will be regarded as a ca...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupendra Chandra Deb and anr. Vs. Sm. Rash Mani Gope W/O Balaram Gope ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal477
ORDERB.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the heirs and legal representatives of defendant 1 and the suit out of which it arises was commenced by the plaintiffs for setting aside the sale of a share of a revenue paying estate, held under the provisions of Act 11 of 1859. The property sold is a separate account, being separate account No, 6 of Taluk Shivaganga Sen, bearing Touzi NO. 6375 of the Mymensingh Collectorate. This separate account represents a three annas odd gandas share of the entire touzi, and the revenue assessed on it is Rs. 85-12-0 a year which is payable in four instalments, in the months of January, March, June and September every year. The property belonged admittedly to Gobinda Sen and others, In execution of a mortgage decree against the proprietors, it was put up to sale on 19th May 1934 and purchased jointly by four brothers, to wit, Balaram, Earn Kanai, Bhuban and Niranjan Gope and the daughters of another pre-deceased brother named Brindaban. The mor...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hamid and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1945
Reported in: AIR1948Cal107
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Mymensingh to show cause why an order calling upon the petitioners to execute bonds to be of good behaviour should not be set aside. Proceedings were drawn up against the first two petitioners and four others on a police report on 17-7-1943. Similar proceedings were drawn up against the third petitioner and one other much later on 11-12-1943. For reasons that are not at all apparent these two proceedings were tried together and one of the complaints made by the petitioners is that they have been prejudiced thereby.2. The proceedings were drawn up on the usual lines and alleged that the petitioners were by habit thieves, robbers and burglars and men of so desperate and dangerous a character, that their being at large without security was hazardous to the community. The evidence was led on the usual lines and it is a matter of common experience that in these cases the last allegation is nothing but padding.3. The...
Tag this Judgment!Ashgar Ally Vs. Dr. Birendra Nath Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal249
ORDERGentle, J.1. These proceedings are brought by a relator, Ashgar Ali, who is a resident of Calcutta City and is an enrolled elector in Ward No. 9. The applicant's locus standi to institute these proceedings is not questioned. The respondent, Dr. Birendra Nath Dey, formerly held the appointment as Chief Engineer of the Calcutta Corporation from 1933, his appointment determined by effiuxion of time on 14th October 1943. By Resolution No. 747, passed at a meeting of the Corporation on 4th October 1943, the respondent was appointed the Corporation's Special Officer in charge of the several departments specified in the resolution and to do the duties of Engineering Adviser to the Corporation. One other department was subsequently placed under the respondent's charge.2. The applicant questions the legality of the respondent's appointment as Special Officer and alleges that he is usurping the office of the Corporation's Chief Engineer and of Engineer under certain statutes. The applicant ...
Tag this Judgment!Amarendra Chandra Chakravorty Vs. Garrison Engineer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal340
JUDGMENT 1. One A. C. Chakravorty was appointed as a "Siding Supervisor" by the Garrison Engineer, Indian Works Section, Feni Air Fields to supervise the works of labourers employed. He was subsequently removed from service by the Garrison Engineer. On the same day, a complaint in writing marked 'confidential' was sent to Sub-divisional Officer Feni, District Noakhali, by the Garrison Engineer for having extorted money from his subordinates. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offences complained of and issued a warrant of arrest under Sections 406/384, Penal Code. He was arrested and produced before the Sub-divisional Officer who ordered remand. A bail was applied for but was refused by the Magistrate and also by the Sessions Judge, Ultimately, the High Court ordered release on interim bail after notice to the Crown. The order was ultimately made absolute. 2. During the bail proceedings, when the accused appeared before the Magistrate for his trial, he was re-arrested as he was clai...
Tag this Judgment!Hrishikesh Mukherjee Vs. Jagadish Chandra Roy Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal354
ORDERAkram, J.1. This is a reference by the Taxing Officer under Section 5, Court-fees Act. Broadly stated the facts are as follows: In Mortgage Suit No. 23/34 defendant 1 obtained a mortgage decree for a sum of Rs. 14,062-2-9 against the plaintiff's predecessor and his two brothers; in execution of the decree he sold the property which fell to the share of the plaintiff's predecessor first (as directed by the High Court) and purchased the same for Rs. 10,000; there was thus a balance of Rs. 4062-2-9 left in favour of defendant 1 under the decree; defendant 1 then sold to defendant 2 the purchased property as well as the decretal dues on 25th June 1940; defendant 2 thereafter sought to execute the decree for the balance outstanding; one of the brothers of the plaintiff's predecessor (defendant 4) thereupon filed a review petition under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act for reopening the decree, Misc. case No. 13 of 1941; pending the Misc. Case No. 13 of 1941 the plaintiffs' predecessor died...
Tag this Judgment!Amal Shankar Sen and ors. Vs. the Dacca Co-operative Housing Society L ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal350
Mitter J.1. The Dacca Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (now in liquidation) a society established under the Co-operative Societies Act (Act 2 of 1912); brought a suit against the appellants as the legal representatives of one Bhaba Sankar Sen. The case of the plaintiff is that Bhaba Sankar Sen who was a member of that co-operative society borrowed money from the society on three occasions and for securing re-payment thereof he executed three mortgage bonds for Rs. 8000, Rs. 2240 and Rs. 5560, on 10th July 1929, 30th June 1932 and 30th June 1932 respectively. Those bonds have been marked as Exs. 3(e), 2(h) and 1(h) respectively. All the bonds provided for payment of interest at the rate of 8 per cent. per annum and the monies were payable according to the terms of the mortgage instruments in ten yearly installments. The further allegation made in the plaint was that a sum of Rs. 150 was paid by Bhaba Sankar as interest on 15th September 1937 on the first bond, another sum of Rs. 150 on...
Tag this Judgment!Amritalal Chatterjee Vs. Manindra Nath Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal300
Khundkar, J.1. The facts which have given, rise to this appeal may be shortly stated. On 21st January 1930, the respondent obtained a rent decree against three sisters who had jointly inherited a tenure. Thereafter two of the sisters died, and the survivor Bhababhabini relinquished her interest in favour of her reversioners who were her sons, the Ghoses, and her nephews, the Biswases. Then there was an arrangement under which the assets and liabilities thus acquired by these two groups of persons were divided between them in certain proportions, and both the Ghoses and the Biswases undertook to satisfy the rent decree. The Ghoses eventually paid off their share of this liability, but the Biswases failed to pay off theirs. One execution case after another was instituted by the respondent between 1931 and 1939, but every one of them for some reason or another, proved infructuous. In 1935 the superior touzi was sold for arrears of revenue, and, as a consequence of that, the tenure was ext...
Tag this Judgment!Sadak Ali and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1945
Reported in: AIR1948Cal47
ORDER1. The three petitioners in this case are Civic Guards and have been convicted of abetment of attempt to extort a sum of five rupees made by an absconding accused, a constable of the Calcutta Police. They have each been sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The main evidence is given by Libar Shaw (P.W. 1) and Nanda Paria, a Corporation, street waterman (P.W. 5). According to them the former had purchased a tin of kerosene oil from the shop of Sakhi Chand Shaw (P.W. 2) and the waterman was carrying it in a scavenger cart when they were challenged by the now absconding constable. The present three petitioners were along with the constable. Libar Shaw was asked by the constable if he had a cash, memo. He showed the memo to the constable who took possession of it and then the party were moving on to the thana. After going some way the constable demanded 5 Rupees saying that he would let Libar Shaw go if this was paid. The petitioners themselves did not ask for money but...
Tag this Judgment!Eusof Shaikh and anr. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1945
Reported in: 1949CriLJ895
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This is a Rule calling on the District Magistrate of Khulna to show cause why the conviction of the petitioners should not be set aside on ground No. l attached to the petition which is in these terms: 'For that Section 403, Criminal F. 0., is a bar to a proceeding under Section 188, Penal Code.' Now that the record has arrived it appears that this ground only applies to the case of petitioner 1. At the hearing Mr. Mukherji further contended that, even if the conviction is sustained, the sentences should be set aside in view of the provisions of s, 71, Penal Code.2. The petitioners have been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 188, Penal Code on the allegation that they reaped the paddy of plot no. 454 in defiance of an order made by the Magistrate under 8. 144, Criminal P. O. They had been previously convicted of theft in connection with the same incident.3. In order to make the ground good Mr. Mukherjee must bring the case within the terms-of Section...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »